Timing on a Tag Play

[Velho]

Interested if others think knowing there is Replay affected the call as a whole.

 h/t @MadMax

 

[The Man in Blue]

I'm not sure what you are saying/asking . . . 

Are you referring to the umpire's call and his timing?  I would think knowing there is replay would cause one to err on continuing play (easier to undo) rather than killing play (and speculating what would have happened).  IMO, it looks as if he is behind the fielder's body and saw the arm motion without being able to actually see the hands.

Or are you asking if they look at the other aspects of the play?  (i.e., If the runner should have scored on a time play)

[Velho]

Let's assume (fine, project) a bit: not having replay, when I'm one of my parent volunteer umpires are too quick and call the out without seeing proper control as the ball rolls away we preach "no ego". Yes you called Out and yes you will look stupid to now call Safe - do it anyway. And sell the Safe as BIG as any call you've ever sold. OUT....SAFE! SAFE! SAFE!! SAFE!!!

I wonder if knowing replay is there short circuits that. Call it once and hold to it. Let replay overturn it. That's the question that ran through my mind.

[Velho]

Separately, crossing dimensions, the fielder without the ball in front of the base and not in the act of receiving a throw certainly spooked the runner into changing his plans... no?

[WIUMP]

7 hours ago, Velho said:

Separately, crossing dimensions, the fielder without the ball in front of the base and not in the act of receiving a throw certainly spooked the runner into changing his plans... no?

This is what I thought watching live, especially with the emphasis on calling obstruction. I guess F8 dropping the ball on the tag bailed out the umpires from making the much less palatable obstruction call after review. It seemed that B1 was asking the bench to look at obstruction in determining replay, not the dropped ball.

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, Matthew Turner said:

This is what I thought watching live, especially with the emphasis on calling obstruction. I guess F8 dropping the ball on the tag bailed out the umpires from making the much less palatable obstruction call after review. It seemed that B1 was asking the bench to look at obstruction in determining replay, not the dropped ball.

I don't think OBS is reviewable. But this and the Bucknor call has me wondering if nobody even thinks of asking the umps to get together. Call time and ask Bucknor to check with his partners if they saw the runner touch. Bucknor knows he was looking away and they get the call correct. Same thing here. Suppose replay has a valid tag. Can manager still come out and ask U2 to get together about possible OBS?

[The Man in Blue]

21 hours ago, Velho said:

Let's assume (fine, project) a bit: not having replay, when I'm one of my parent volunteer umpires are too quick and call the out without seeing proper control as the ball rolls away we preach "no ego". Yes you called Out and yes you will look stupid to now call Safe - do it anyway. And sell the Safe as BIG as any call you've ever sold. OUT....SAFE! SAFE! SAFE!! SAFE!!!

I wonder if knowing replay is there short circuits that. Call it once and hold to it. Let replay overturn it. That's the question that ran through my mind.

Ahhh . . . now I get you.  I'm still going with "no."  I cannot fathom an umpire leaving a fixable and known wrong call for replay to clean up.  I don't think an umpire looks stupid when there is a reason for a quick call, and the play changes just as quickly.

In this specific play, I imagine the quick call was due to the time play, then compounded by my previous theory of being behind the body and seeing arm action, but not the actual lack of control and involuntary release.

[Velho]

8 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

In this specific play, I imagine the quick call was due to the time play

Do you accelerate your call when it's a possible score/no score time play?

[The Man in Blue]

Yes … well, I mean, I don’t “accelerate”, but I don’t pause like I would on a routine play.  There is urgency.

Do you not?

[Velho]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Yes … well, I mean, I don’t “accelerate”, but I don’t pause like I would on a routine play.  There is urgency.

Do you not?

Once I grokked that when it's called is nearly insignificant, I stopped feeling any urgency. I may make it bigger or not nonchalant like a normal 3rd out to ensure PU sees it well, but I don't feel any urgency.

[The Man in Blue]

Poking, not disagreeing ... then why bother to call attention to the situation in pre-pitch communications?

[Velho]

3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Poking, not disagreeing ... then why bother to call attention to the situation in pre-pitch communications?

At this point, only reason for the signal I've got is remind the PU to be on their toes.

Prodding along, not fighting... why don't we do the timing signal with 1 out and multiple runners on base?

[Jimurray]

11 hours ago, Velho said:

At this point, only reason for the signal I've got is remind the PU to be on their toes.

Prodding along, not fighting... why don't we do the timing signal with 1 out and multiple runners on base?

At most levels BUs don’t initiate signals. I suspect at your level you might have to. 
 

On the Refmaster site I had a discussion with Brennan about time plays and he says he gives the signal with 1 out situations to remind himself. 

[BigBlue4u]

On 4/5/2026 at 7:19 PM, The Man in Blue said:

In this specific play, I imagine the quick call was due to the time play, then compounded by my previous theory of being behind the body and seeing arm action, but not the actual lack of control and involuntary release.

 The determining factor in a time play is when the tag is made, not when the umpire makes the call, Thus, the timing of the call should not be a consideration.

[Velho]

On 4/8/2026 at 7:05 AM, Jimurray said:

At most levels BUs don’t initiate signals. I suspect at your level you might have to. 

Certainly given the high variance in experience of my partners. That said, personally I don't fall into the camp that 'only the PU can initiate signals'. It's strongly preferred but if our rhythm is off or they get busy, I'll do it (or one of us on a >2 umpire crew).

On 4/8/2026 at 7:05 AM, Jimurray said:

On the Refmaster site I had a discussion with Brennan about time plays and he says he gives the signal with 1 out situations to remind himself. 

I do this for rotations on a full size field 3/4 man as I break off the muscle memory rust (only do those game in the playoffs). I give myself non standard signals that no one else can see.

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

 The determining factor in a time play is when the tag is made, not when the umpire makes the call, Thus, the timing of the call should not be a consideration.

Correct, whenever I get around to making my call is not the determining factor on the run scoring.  But why should I leave my partner struggling for an angle or guessing when he tag happened?  I can nail that call big and loud to make his life easier.  

Had this on a rundown last week.  Partner appreciated the quick, big "TAG, OUT!" that I gave him as he was stepping back and trying to find an angle to watch the late-breaking R3 coming in and the action around R1 scrambling back and forth.

[MadMax]

I requested @Velho to make & post this clip primarily to exhibit and expound upon teaching, training and application methods. 

We, collectively, get hounded on arbitrary, ambiguous, vacuous "qualities" that we're supposed to possess and employ – not just understand, but to actually put in to practice to such an extent that we are judged (buzz word – evaluated) by them. These qualities don't just originate from school(s), but disseminate out into camps, clinics, and ad-hoc training sessions; that they do isn't necessarily the problem. The problem is, they are applied bereft of context, and... reinforced by pointing at the Professional (Umpires) level, held aloft as The Gold Standard. 

Now, I'm not going to identify the specific Umpire, because, to be fair and realistic, this could have happened to any and each of the Pro Umpires on the staff. However, this needs to be pointed out because this Umpire has matriculated through THE "most official" training system so as to reach that Pro level. 

• Timing: Timing, timing, timing. We're supposed to have timing. Did this U, on this call? Nope! 
• Stopped & Set, Angle: Granted, he's in a 4-man crew, so he's got bracketing crewmates, so there's no imperative to move. Indeed, he initially sets up – hands on knees set – as the play progresses, and moves accordingly. However, he steps right into an angle that blocks him out from the actual tag. There's no way he saw the glove actually touch the Runner. Yet, he claims (calls) the Runner Out. Also, because he is moving / changing his angle, he doesn't see the OBS originating to his right. If he had stayed where he initially was, he would have been in a better position to not only see the tag (from a sight angle), but also the OBS – within the same "window". 
  And yes, that was more obvious OBS than other called plays this (early) season. 
• Justification: Sure, the U saw the ball on the ground, but instead of verifying why (it ended up on the ground), he compounded the error – doubled down on it – by calling/claiming/signaling that he (fielder) was "taking it out" (AKA "on the transfer"). That injects that dangerous term to the process – "(umpire) judgement"... which isn't contestable. Can't be reviewed and overturned... or so we've been told / led to believe for years. So yes, it looks like the U jumped right to "taking it out" so as to justify his call and not be contested on it! This brings into question and scrutiny on similar calls (such as Out of the Baseline, etc.). 
• Read Step: This ties into all three of the previous components. I remember getting excoriated at school regarding read steps – more specifically, my lack of them. I knew, from being a hockey goalie and catcher, that moving, at critical times, makes things worse. And, when we factor in that we're (again) hounded on "staying stopped and set (to make calls)", we're in a no-win* situation. Could a read step have aided this Umpire? Ab-so-freakin'-lootly! A read step would have given him a better angle to see the (not) tag, and a read step would have granted him more time to see the entirety of the action, and see that the fielder never went to his glove with his hand (thus, no "taking it out"). 

So, certainly, this Umpire likely got admonished post-game, either amongst the crew in a session of self-reflection, or by his supervisor. That's not my place to heap any more criticism on him, specifically. He is a Professional, already at the Professional level. However, I am going to criticize the system, primarily because that system purports and almost demands that we (as amateur / aspiring umpires) do things "their way", and failure to do so... isn't that you'll get calls wrong, but that you won't be "tapped" and advanced by their system. 

😮‍💨  Pardon me, plays like this just touch a nerve with me. 

Personally, I have a method that I use and teach that is highly effective, not only for the localized play, but also for the "bigger picture", ie. a time play. I teach (new) umpires – if you see a tag (on a rundown, for example), point at and (audibly) call it as a "TAG!". DO NOT call it as an "Out", and only mechanic / signal the Out once you have voluntary release / secure possession / etc. Why's that? Because you can acknowledge the tag (attempt) making contact and give yourself that extra moment to process it so that it satisfies the requirements to be an Out, without having to resort to awkwardly "fixing" the call on the fly. 

[The Man in Blue]

4 hours ago, MadMax said:

Personally, I have a method that I use and teach that is highly effective, not only for the localized play, but also for the "bigger picture", ie. a time play. I teach (new) umpires – if you see a tag (on a rundown, for example), point at and (audibly) call it as a "TAG!". DO NOT call it as an "Out", and only mechanic / signal the Out once you have voluntary release / secure possession / etc. Why's that? Because you can acknowledge the tag (attempt) making contact and give yourself that extra moment to process it so that it satisfies the requirements to be an Out, without having to resort to awkwardly "fixing" the call on the fly. 

 

Hey, that sounds familiar! 

(I guess I should have added *pause a beat* between TAG and OUT. I thought the comma would communicate that to readers.)

The point and "TAG" is your time marker.  At that point, your partner can take care of their own runner's position.   

[noumpere]

On 4/7/2026 at 11:02 PM, Velho said:

At this point, only reason for the signal I've got is remind the PU to be on their toes.

Prodding along, not fighting... why don't we do the timing signal with 1 out and multiple runners on base?

I often did this.  I think we don't do it mre often becuase it's "too advanced" for the 13-year olds who are starting their training and then we forget to add it.

On 4/9/2026 at 4:11 PM, BigBlue4u said:

 The determining factor in a time play is when the tag is made, not when the umpire makes the call, Thus, the timing of the call should not be a consideration.

Point (and / or verbalize) at the tag when it happens and then give the result of the tag when it is known.  If the result is an out, then the former becomes the time.

[dumbdumb]

On 4/10/2026 at 6:58 PM, MadMax said:

I requested @Velho to make & post this clip primarily to exhibit and expound upon teaching, training and application methods. 

We, collectively, get hounded on arbitrary, ambiguous, vacuous "qualities" that we're supposed to possess and employ – not just understand, but to actually put in to practice to such an extent that we are judged (buzz word – evaluated) by them. These qualities don't just originate from school(s), but disseminate out into camps, clinics, and ad-hoc training sessions; that they do isn't necessarily the problem. The problem is, they are applied bereft of context, and... reinforced by pointing at the Professional (Umpires) level, held aloft as The Gold Standard. 

Now, I'm not going to identify the specific Umpire, because, to be fair and realistic, this could have happened to any and each of the Pro Umpires on the staff. However, this needs to be pointed out because this Umpire has matriculated through THE "most official" training system so as to reach that Pro level. 

• Timing: Timing, timing, timing. We're supposed to have timing. Did this U, on this call? Nope! 
• Stopped & Set, Angle: Granted, he's in a 4-man crew, so he's got bracketing crewmates, so there's no imperative to move. Indeed, he initially sets up – hands on knees set – as the play progresses, and moves accordingly. However, he steps right into an angle that blocks him out from the actual tag. There's no way he saw the glove actually touch the Runner. Yet, he claims (calls) the Runner Out. Also, because he is moving / changing his angle, he doesn't see the OBS originating to his right. If he had stayed where he initially was, he would have been in a better position to not only see the tag (from a sight angle), but also the OBS – within the same "window". 
  And yes, that was more obvious OBS than other called plays this (early) season. 
• Justification: Sure, the U saw the ball on the ground, but instead of verifying why (it ended up on the ground), he compounded the error – doubled down on it – by calling/claiming/signaling that he (fielder) was "taking it out" (AKA "on the transfer"). That injects that dangerous term to the process – "(umpire) judgement"... which isn't contestable. Can't be reviewed and overturned... or so we've been told / led to believe for years. So yes, it looks like the U jumped right to "taking it out" so as to justify his call and not be contested on it! This brings into question and scrutiny on similar calls (such as Out of the Baseline, etc.). 
• Read Step: This ties into all three of the previous components. I remember getting excoriated at school regarding read steps – more specifically, my lack of them. I knew, from being a hockey goalie and catcher, that moving, at critical times, makes things worse. And, when we factor in that we're (again) hounded on "staying stopped and set (to make calls)", we're in a no-win* situation. Could a read step have aided this Umpire? Ab-so-freakin'-lootly! A read step would have given him a better angle to see the (not) tag, and a read step would have granted him more time to see the entirety of the action, and see that the fielder never went to his glove with his hand (thus, no "taking it out"). 

So, certainly, this Umpire likely got admonished post-game, either amongst the crew in a session of self-reflection, or by his supervisor. That's not my place to heap any more criticism on him, specifically. He is a Professional, already at the Professional level. However, I am going to criticize the system, primarily because that system purports and almost demands that we (as amateur / aspiring umpires) do things "their way", and failure to do so... isn't that you'll get calls wrong, but that you won't be "tapped" and advanced by their system. 

😮‍💨  Pardon me, plays like this just touch a nerve with me. 

Personally, I have a method that I use and teach that is highly effective, not only for the localized play, but also for the "bigger picture", ie. a time play. I teach (new) umpires – if you see a tag (on a rundown, for example), point at and (audibly) call it as a "TAG!". DO NOT call it as an "Out", and only mechanic / signal the Out once you have voluntary release / secure possession / etc. Why's that? Because you can acknowledge the tag (attempt) making contact and give yourself that extra moment to process it so that it satisfies the requirements to be an Out, without having to resort to awkwardly "fixing" the call on the fly. 

now max. you sure this isn't a cousin to the, show me the ball, statement.

and don't forget, even if we get to a point where we get all mechanics, positioning, read steps, etc. no matter who/whom invents them, and very very close to perfection, you can still f/s-crew up the call itself whether it is a MLB system MiLB system, CCA system, HS system, MS system, LL system, Travel ball system, Babe Ruth system, Colt sytem, Poney system, Leagion system etc., a la Mr. Joyce, Mr. Denkinger, Mr. Tschida and everyone sooner or later. 

and then right after you do make the tough call, the famous song goes off in your head, whether the Sinatra version or the Elvis version, I did it my way.

[MadMax]

On 4/12/2026 at 5:55 AM, dumbdumb said:

and don't forget, even if we get to a point where we get all mechanics, positioning, read steps, etc. no matter who/whom invents them, and very very close to perfection,

"Perfection" according to who?? To which/who or by which/whom are we comparing and evaluating "perfection"? That's my single-greatest issue to take up / throw down / climb my soapbox / tilt with (ala @Velho's avatar)... this obsession with imperatives. "You must learn / interpret / use / do <this> this way!" I'm not saying to compromise on what we're applying / implementing / calling (ie. a rule), but my issue is with how, more specifically how to (learn to) apply / implement / call "it". 

Coming at this from another angle, where we once had some what, half dozen (?) "professional"-level schools, why do we now have... none? 

On 4/12/2026 at 5:55 AM, dumbdumb said:

you can still f/s-crew up the call itself whether it is a MLB system...

Precisely. So why hold aloft the "professional standard" – more to my point, the professional method – when that's just as culpable and prone to mistakes?